AMD Radeon R7 M460 versus AMD Radeon R9 M375
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 M460 and AMD Radeon R9 M375 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 M460
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 10% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1100 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 11% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1125 MHz versus 1015 MHz
- Environ 64% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1800 MHz versus 1100 MHz
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1072 versus 970
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 205 versus 162
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 358.673 versus 272.547
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2294 versus 2227
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2772 versus 2112
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2294 versus 2227
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2772 versus 2112
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 15 May 2016 versus 5 May 2015 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1100 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1125 MHz versus 1015 MHz |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1100 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1072 versus 970 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 205 versus 162 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 358.673 versus 272.547 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2294 versus 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2772 versus 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2294 versus 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2772 versus 2112 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M375
- Environ 50% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 40.6 GTexel / s versus 27 GTexel / s
- Environ 67% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 384
- Environ 50% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,299 gflops versus 864.0 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10853 versus 4999
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 29.048 versus 19.679
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.024 versus 1.572
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.994 versus 30.024
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 142.872 versus 85.168
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1850 versus 1767
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1850 versus 1767
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.6 GTexel / s versus 27 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 640 versus 384 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,299 gflops versus 864.0 gflops |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10853 versus 4999 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 29.048 versus 19.679 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.024 versus 1.572 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.994 versus 30.024 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 142.872 versus 85.168 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1850 versus 1767 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1850 versus 1767 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M460
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M375
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon R7 M460 | AMD Radeon R9 M375 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1072 | 970 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 205 | 162 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4999 | 10853 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 19.679 | 29.048 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 358.673 | 272.547 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.572 | 2.024 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.024 | 35.994 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 85.168 | 142.872 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2294 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1767 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2772 | 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2294 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1767 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2772 | 2112 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 M460 | AMD Radeon R9 M375 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Meso | Tropo |
Date de sortie | 15 May 2016 | 5 May 2015 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1242 | 1243 |
Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1125 MHz | 1015 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1100 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 864.0 gflops | 1,299 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 640 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 27 GTexel / s | 40.6 GTexel / s |
Compte de transistor | 3,100 million | 1,500 million |
Unités de Compute | 10 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1100 MHz |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
DualGraphics | ||
Enduro | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
ZeroCore |